Microsoft revealed today that it will not support EFI booting for Windows Vista on its launch. The news will be a shock for owners of Intel Macs who had hoped they would be able to dual-boot between Windows Vista and OS X. Intel Macs only support booting via EFI.

Well, that sucks. I was waiting to get a 64-bit MacBook Pro (these should be out within a year from now), but the idea was to also multi-boot Windows and Linux on it as well as OSX. Now, this kinda sours my plans.

But seriously, *wipes away a tear* I think I'm going to hold off on buying a laptop until Vista comes out and just get a regular Core Duo lappie. None of that overpriced Apple stuff - I've only used it a few times, and I've not been impressed with it (but a few minutes can hardly be enough time to "wow"). I might even hold off until Vista SP1, so I can get the latest and greatest hardware at the time.

If I recally correctly Intel will be releasing Merom by September of this year, not 2007. So unless laptop manufacturers such as HP, Dell, Apple, etc have other plans we should see Core Duo laptops supporting EMT64 later this year.

As for lack of EFI support this may be due to motherboard manufacturers not all agreeing with EFI implementation over using BIOS. When I was looking over soon to be released laptops such as the HP NX9420 on review sites like http://www.notebookreview.com/ unless I'm mistaken I haven't seen a single one mention support for EFI. So while it appears EFI motherboards will be sparse consumers using EFI may appreciate using just their current system OS or using a Linux distribution that supports EFI. They may be also possibly able to run Windows Vista with an emulator if they really need to.

It might actually mean that notebooks will come without Windows tax, if the notebooks are released without there being Windows support. I'd love to see that, as it's nigh impossible to get a Windows-less notebook here in Europe.

It will probably mean notebooks will either not be released or loaded with BIOS backwards compatible firmware.

this is why they won't support EFI. Strange way to put it out that MS needs to get a clue, just because they are ensuring bigger proffit to them selves.

Look from their perspective (they are out to make money not to please Eugenia and few others)
1. you (and few others) were waiting to get a MacBook Pro to multi-boot Windows and Linux on it as well as OSX
- Well, now you won't. Which one will you choose? In any case, generaly looking, 99% of people will decide for Windows compatible machine and not OSX compatible. Meaning MS wins what they wanted
2. By supporting EFI, they would automaticaly introduce competitor to them self. Remember, Joe User could look if OSX is adequate for his job or not. Now, they just excluded one, because Joe User won't be able to see OSX.

As well, as for your plans:)
1. Apple said they won't do anything against booting Windows on the same machine. They never said they will do something to enable that option. Meaning, they just evaded any additional work and retained their face.
2. MS is for sure not interested to enable Joe User to compare between OSX and Windows. They just don't need to support EFI, and that is it.
3. You were really naive if you even though about different outcome. (all the moded down comments of mine when I was predicting this outcome in the past were not for nothing, it seems)

p.s. One could only expect that Apple would start moving from EFI to BIOS in future to ensure them self bigger sales. This EFI trick will cost them quite a few of planned proffit. But, I'm sure MS already has plans for that too.

Well, I guess VMWare will have to do then. The word has it that VMWare is porting their client as we speak. Even if Microsoft won't create a universal binary for their VirtualPC for Macs anymore (it is not yet decided at MS what they want to do with their Mac client), there is VMWare coming.

Not to mention the fact that VMWare is free (as in beer). Both the player (for one-off, desktop use), and the Server (useful to setup a couple of VMs to do network/server testing on a regular basis).

OSX is already pretty much POSIX compliant (linux software have run on it for ages, after recompilation and some tweaks for PPC). Now that the machines are simple intel VMWare will be ported from linux in a snap.

If the "native gtk" project gains steam they could be only a recompile away. Otherwise they'd need to rewrite the UI (I don't think they'd require an X server).

I think their point of not needing modification to work on the Intel Macs, it mostly valid. From what I saw the Mac QEMU developers made the universal binary conversion quite quickly.

What will take time is the porting of the x86 processor virtualization code to the Intel Mac. Virtualization of x86 was not possible before the switch to Intel so this will be a new project. Remember, QEMU for the Mac is only an emulator at this point.

Does anyone know where I can find an official announcement for VMWare for Mac?

Do you have any contacts at VMWare that would allow you to interview them and perhaps get more information regarding their plans for OSX? It would be great to know their roadmap or possible beta testing opportunities.

But now, because of how long that took, all the other stuff they promised will either be released incrementally after launch, or via a service pack. I don't think they've outright canned any of the announced features, I think it's just a matter of time.

Honestly, all this sympathy for Microsoft. It's not enough that they're one of the world's richest corporations or that they control around 90% of the desktop market? Some of you feel sorry for them because they're being "picked on"? You've got to be kidding. MS execs buying cars, mansions, god knows what else at your expense, and you feel sorry for them. The jokes on you. If you all think MS gets such a bad rap here, Slashdot and other places, why don't you all confine yourselves to the MS forums where they do nothin but sing in praise of BILL.

Judging by the vote abuse that's been going for a while now on OSNews and slashdot... *wink*

That is the reason that I did not want a voting system added to osnews. It leads to only the biggest groups views from being heard. Luckily it is nowhere near the level that slashdot is at (just try to mention something good about windows on there).

"Do you think owners of macbooks will be more pissed at apple for having EFI or at vista for not supporting it?"

I don't remember large groups of people being mad at Apple for choosing the power architecture even though that resulted in people not being able to run Windows natively after a certain build of NT. Apple never said their computers would run Windows, and people getting Macs in the hopes that they would were knowingly gambling on that expectation. While it is possible that people would be angry at Apple, I think it's far more likely that most of the blame will land on Microsoft.

Vista is going to be a limited, locked-down system. No one will be allowed to write device drivers for it without permission from Microsoft; drivers will have to be digitally signed with a Microsoft-approved key to run. They are going to support fewer devices, not more.

The motivation, it appears, is to create a Hollywood-friendly platform. The next step is that high-definition video disks will only play on an approved Vista system. Macs can get in the club too if Steve Jobs agrees to ship similarly crippled systems and makes sure that no device can allow Hollywood's precious bodily fluids to escape. If they play it right, they can try to force everyone to buy new hardware, because the older hardware will be blocked out of DRM paradise.

Macs can get in the club too if Steve Jobs agrees to ship similarly crippled systems and makes sure that no device can allow Hollywood's precious bodily fluids to escape. If they play it right, they can try to force everyone to buy new hardware, because the older hardware will be blocked out of DRM paradise.

Remember that not everyone needs Hollywood. Even if they do there are other hardware alternatives to play the Hollywood content than your only computer.

Personally I couldnt care less as I have no intentions to dual boot my future Intel Macs. Eugenias information on VMware being ported is much more of interest to me as it'll enable me to run an instance of WindowsXP or Windows2003 on my Mac WHEN I need to support a client.

Apart from gaming and educational needs, I think dual-booting is pretty pointless - virtualization is the ticket.

cripes, do you really think that dual booting is a better option than virtualization?

Yeah, it is. Native full speed is simply better than virtualized one. I'm using VMWare on Linux (my heart doesn't allow me to have Windows installed as dual-boot for one and only Win app I need, VMWare is easier to transfer between my notebooks) for few years now, and all I can say is "Performance and restrictions are painfull"

Oh well. Even though I am buying a intel mini, it is no big loss. If there really are not any systems out there that even use EFI, as we know there can't be as they wouldn't be able to use Windows at all, why bother with supporting it? Pushing the technology is cool and all but is this really what everyone is waiting for? Seems to me that if drivers are stored in flash ram and not part of the OS it might be more of a pain to troubleshoot and update drivers... Don't really know much about it though, so just my 2 cents...

Apple promised that I could run Windows on my Mac! This sucks! Cast your mind back to the switch announcement and Steve Jobs said:

"We aren't really interested in Mac OS X any more. We are building a platform that will run Windows. This way you can get a cool looking machine and not be forced to run our OS. As you all know, this nonsense about low-power high-performace chips from Intel is nothing but a smokescreen. What we really want you to do is run Windows Vista, which will be much better than 10.5 anyway."

Oh hang on, that might have been a Dvorak article, I can't remember now...

Personally it doesn't surprise me. Why would Microsoft want to give Apple any business? Apple may sell hardware, but they also sell an OS along with that hardware. It's better for Microsoft if less people buy Macs.

I don't think there's any reason to be upset about this. Apple doesn't want people running Windows on their boxes anyway. If a Mac can boot Windows, then that'll take away from the "special" quality of the Macs. Now that they run Intel x86 hardware, they have to make their hardware special one way or another.

The only people running Windows on MacIntels will be us brave computer geeks willing to go the extra mile. And really Apple could care less about us. Same with Microsoft. At the end of the day, it's all about business.

Both Microsoft and Apple have good business reasons for not making it easy for their products to be compatible.

Spot on. Your post really made me think. Neither Apple nor Microsoft want OS X to run on generic PCs, or for Vista/XP to run on Macs.

For us geeks/hackers (not crackers) we live for choice. Just look at Linux and some of the UNIXs.

For the vast majority of users, which is what most businesses target, choice isn't something they want, instead they want it to "just work". Software Business is in many cases "anti-choice". Either by nature or by some insidious business model this is the way things work, if they can reduce choice to their products (and maybe their "friends") they stand to profit most. Capitalisim 101.

The two companies --Apple and MS-- are simply epitomizing the entire software industry in this situation, because removing choice is what works best for their short-term bottom line. As much as the vast majority of us hate this, as you pointed out: there's no reason to be upset, this is just the way things are.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^For the vast majority of users, which is what most businesses target, choice isn't something they want, instead they want it to "just work". Software Business is in many cases "anti-choice". Either by nature or by some insidious business model this is the way things work, if they can reduce choice to their products (and maybe their "friends") they stand to profit most. Capitalisim 101.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You shouldn't be giving "capitalism 101" lessons, you don't know what it is.

Competition is one of the core components that makes capitalism so effective. Reducing choice in the manner you describe is what would be found in the corporatist, or socialist model. Both of these models have alot of back-room deals and cronyism at their core. It's all about power................................

Capitolism is about efficent use of resources using revenue as a regulation mechanism, pruning off the weaker companies in favor of the most competative company. IT is not about providing good service, or quality service, infact, as competition falls off due to capitolistic preasures, service goes into the toilet.

"I don't think there's any reason to be upset about this. Apple doesn't want people running Windows on their boxes anyway."

This wonderfully exemplifies Apple's and its users' terminal confusion about whose box it is.

I really do not care for a supplier who cares so much about what I run on my box, and who also has the confused idea, echoed in the choice of words in this post, that maybe, though I have bought it, it might still be his.

That's what I thought given microsofts past attemps at trying to implement intel specs. Only this time there are already machines out there that actually work so people will notice and call them on it if it turns out their implementation is broken.

And so they go back to 80s technology, let's spin it and call it an awesome amount of backwards compatibility instead of an inability to move with the times.

Microsoft has a version of Windows XP for the Itanium - I assume it wouldn't be too hard for them to merge their EFI support from this version into an 80x86 OS.

OS X is (AFAIK) mostly portable code, and could probably be ported to Itanium very easily.

Can we have some conspiracy theories based on this please?

I'll start - what if Microsoft, Apple and Intel secretly agreed to shift the IT industry from 80x86 to Itanium in the next 5 years? Microsoft would gain (no need to worry about legacy hardware or figuring out how to convince people to buy Vista's successor), Intel would gain (no need to worry about AMD), and MS/Intel could make it sound good to Apple by offering continued software for OS X (MS Office, etc) and discounted hardware (to make it easier for Apple to compete with white box suppliers).

Actually this make sense - mutual benefits for the companies involved, and the consumers are forced into upgrading (more benefits for the companies involved). It'd be $$$ for all.

what if Microsoft, Apple and Intel secretly agreed to shift the IT industry from 80x86 to Itanium in the next 5 years? Microsoft would gain (no need to worry about legacy hardware or figuring out how to convince people to buy Vista's successor), Intel would gain (no need to worry about AMD), and MS/Intel could make it sound good to Apple by offering continued software for OS X (MS Office, etc) and discounted hardware (to make it easier for Apple to compete with white box suppliers).

The problem with your theory is that MS dropped IA64 client support and only supports IA64 on the server (and not all Server SKUs at that), and they support, and are moving almost exclusively to x64 client and server products.

They are also supporting UEFI on x64, just not x86. I'm guessing a lack of UEFI hardware from vendors other than Intel currently is one reason why they are not supporting it at RTM for the client.

Vista is going to be a limited, locked-down system. No one will be allowed to write device drivers for it without permission from Microsoft; drivers will have to be digitally signed with a Microsoft-approved key to run. They are going to support fewer devices, not more.

It's kind of sad, actually. If Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, and 2003 are any indication, the default installation of Vista will be more locked down against the end user than it will be against random script kiddies on the internet.

I know, they're working on it. But they've been saying that since the release of 98 was supposed to be more secure than 95. At this point, I'll believe it when I see it.

Well it's bad that they don't support EFI out ot box with first release of Vista because migration path will be much harder for vendors, resulting in less adoptance of EFI. Someone must start producing it and IHV's won't without proper OS support (yes, there is linux, but windows what everyone still uses).

Microsoft is too much shortsighted. It doesn't take much effort to support damn EFI and they even had it for servers already.

Do you see. It is MS fault for stifling innovation in the PC world. They are the reason we still have floppy drives, PS/2 ports, serial port!, etc. They don't want things to move forward so that all those PC parts companies can still sell old crap.

BTW I hope someone can figure out how to get legacy mode in EFI. Write some code for it or something as an extension.

Blame Apple, not Microsoft. It's all Apple's fault after all. If they made MacOSX working on a standard current (read: CURRENT) x86 architecture there would be no problem.

Now most of you, lamers, trolls, are bashing Microsoft once again for something completely out of control. If you dislike Microsoft that much, why not use only your crappy limited OSX and Linux? Because you need Windows to run your applications? Because the people who wrote the applications you're using targeted Windows at the first place because all other alternatives (MacOSX, Linux) were not viable solutions?

Come back to reality. Most people are not over-zealous and just use Windows for so many damn good reasons that the market for such thing (Dualboot Mactel) is so small. Who, after all, is stupid enought to buy a Mactel and then buy Windows? If you plan to use Windows, because OSX and its applications base is too limited, well just buy a standard x86 computer with Windows (it comes with most OEM eh!). You don't need OSX really, like the IPOD, it's just so much advertised that you kinda believe it's good, but it's not.

Microsoft are doing what they should here. You, lamers, trolls, want Microsoft to be the good puppy when Apple insists on doing everything to lock their users on their platform? LOL.

And anyway, for those who keep bashing Vista. Let me remember you that even XP is more viable than OSX and Linux put together. Vista will just make the difference even larger. Can't want to see OSX and Linux go back to where they started.

Insults, scorn and idiocies aside, I'll remind you that EFI has been announced a long time ago as a replacement for BIOS (and a big amelioration), with the benediction of Microsoft. If I remember correctly, Microsoft said it would support EFI, and just changed its mind…

"When Vista hits the streets, all these pathetic whiners and trolls will be the first to buy it. "
LOL

When Vista hits the streets any other major OS - understand Mac OS X, Linux, xBSD among others - will be far more reliable, flexible, mature and efficient than Vista. (not to talk of direct/indirect costs implied: pricey licenses, hardware replacement...)

Microsoft will surely enforce it's market share (that has NOTHING to do with product quality) but from the technological point of view, they'll stay far behind others , just as they did for more than 20 years...

Here's another dose of reality for you wackos: When Vista hits the streets, Linux's last chance for the desktop will be gone. And MacOSX will still be a very small percentage of the PC market. Things won't change much... lol

I predict press headlines like "2007 is the year of Linux on the desktop" and in 2008, etc...

Wasn't it so that Apple recently agreed with Microsoft that Apple wouldn't do *anything* to prevent Windows from running on Macs, in exchange for having Microsoft keep producing Microsoft Office for another few years?

Then why would Microsoft turn around and 'fudge' up having EFI support ready if it was so important to them? Unless they wanted to mislead Apple for some reason of course, but that seems too odd to be true.

The only thing I can think of is that they discovered they made an error and adding in EFI support correctly would take too long (and they will add it shortly after), OR Microsoft wants to throw a wrench in Apple's early launch. (Or my memory has gone down the futz)

Remember that as it stands Microsoft is selling as much copies of Windows to Mac users as it was before, but that there's a real threat of having people switch permanently.

I believe we will see a virtualization layer in Leopard that will allow us to run Windows programs. Have you noticed that many apps (Office 2007) look like they were built to run visually in OS X? It wouldn't surprise me if MS was helping with this.

I don't think you will see vmware until late 2007 anyways. VMWare seems still confused by the demand of the product. I don't think its high on the priority list unfortunately- which is crazy. Perhaps they believe we will just run the windows version on OS X.